Gendered Morality and Backlash Effects in Online Discussions: An Experimental Study on How Users Respond to Hate Speech Comments Against Women and Sexual Minorities

Abstract

Hate speech in online users’ comments is often targeted toward underprivileged social groups such as immigrants, sexual minorities, and women. Besides the general severity of such offenses, social media users’ personal characteristics influence the evaluation of hate comments. We focus on the flagging of hate comments aimed toward women and sexual minorities (i.e., the intention to report such comments as inappropriate to a moderator or platform provider of an online discussion forum). We investigate the influence of user’s morality on the intention to flag of such comments. Relying on social role and backlash theory, we scrutinize in how far gender plays a role in flagging intention and in how far people perceive hate comments by women as an act of double deviance. Therefore, we conducted a 2 × 2 online experiment with 457 participants (51% female) recruited through political interest groups and a German news magazine site on Facebook. Results indicate that moral judgments are to some extent gendered as women are more concerned about fairness and avoiding harm to others than men are. Deviant and agentic online behavior by women is judged more strictly than such behavior by men. Results implicate that moderators of online discussions and platform providers should be sensitive to how gender stereotypes influence online discussions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bartlett, J., & Krasodomski-Jones, A. (2015). Counter-speech. Examining content that challenges extremism online. Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/counter-speech.Pdf.

  7. Beierlein, C., Asbrock, F., Kauff, M., & Schmidt, P. (2014). Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA – 3): Ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen [authoritarianism scale – Short version (KSA – 3): A parsimonous measure capturing the three sub-dimensions of authoritarian attitudes]. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen [Collection of items and scales in social sciences]. https://doi.org/10.6102/zis228.

  8. Blasi, A. (1983). Moral development and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3(2), 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bowman, N. D., Joeckel, S., & Dogruel, L. (2012). A question of morality? The influence of moral salience and nationality on media preferences. Communications - The European Journal of Communication Research, 37, 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2012-0020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chess, S., & Shaw, A. (2015). A conspiracy of fishes, or, how we learned to stop worrying about #GamerGate and embrace hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(1), 208–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00407.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cortese, A. J. (2006). Opposing hate speech. Westport: Praeger Publishers Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10347075.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Council of Europe. (2016). Combating sexist hate speech. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680651592

  16. Crawford, K., & Gillespie, T. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18, 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ditto, P. H., & Koleva, S. P. (2011). Moral empathy gaps and the American culture war. Emotion Review, 3(3), 331–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Downs, D. M., & Cowan, G. (2012). Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1353–1375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00902.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Duncan, L. E., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Lewis, R. J. (2012). Moral psychology and media theory: Historical and emerging viewpoints. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Elm, D. R., Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (2001). Determinants of moral reasoning: Sex role orientation, gender, and academic factors. Business & Society, 40(3), 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility: Lectures on the ethical implications of psychoanalytic insight. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Forsa (2017). Hate speech. Retrieved from http://www.lfm-nrw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lfm-nrw/Service/Pressemitteilungen/Dokumente/2017/Ergebnisbericht_Hate-Speech_forsa-Mai-2017.pdf.

  25. Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf.

  26. Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016, April 12). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments

  27. Garvey, K., & Ford, T. G. (2014). Rationality, political orientation, and the individualizing and binding moral foundations. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 5(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2014.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gilbert, P. R. (2002). Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1271–1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102762478019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Glenn, A. L., Koleva, S., Iver, R., Graham, J., & Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgement and Decision Making, 5(7), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Graham, J. (2014). Morality beyond the lab. Science, 245(6202), 1242. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives use different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., & Young, L. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS One, 7(12), e50092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Henry, S. (2009). Social deviance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks in linguistics: Vol. 13. The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202–228). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Herring, S. C., & Stoerger, S. (2014). Gender and (a) nonymity in computer-mediated communication. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed., pp. 567–586). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., Haidt, J., & Young, L. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS One, 7(8), e42366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Joeckel, S., & Frueh, H. (2016). ‘The world ain’t all sunshine’: Investigating the relationship between mean world beliefs, conservatism and crime TV exposure. Communications - The European Journal of Communication Research, 41, 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2016-0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Joeckel, S., Bowman, N. D., & Dogruel, L. (2013). The influence of adolescents' moral salience on actions and entertainment experience in interactive media. Journal of Children and Media, 7(4), 480–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2013.781513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kenski, K., Coe, K., & Rains, S. A. (2017). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933.

  48. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions? Social Justice Research, 27(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0223-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Leskinen, E. A., Rabelo, V. C., & Cortina, L. M. (2015). Gender stereotyping and harassment: A "catch-22" for women in the workplace. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Manganelli, A. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1223–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Masullo Chen, G. (2017). Incivility and deliberation: Understanding the discourse around race, sexual orientation, and politics through online comments. Paper presented at the 66th annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Diego, CA.

  55. Monin, B., & Jordan, A. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological perspective. In D. Narváez & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character. Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 341–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Naab, T. K., Kalch, A., & Meitz, T. G. K. (2018). Flagging uncivil user comments: Effects of intervention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. New Media & Society, 20(2), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816670923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2009). Moral identity, moral functioning, and the development of moral character. In D. Medin, L. Skitka, D. Bartels, & C. Bauman (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Moral cognition and decision-making (Vol. 50, pp. 237–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00408-8.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics scale: Implications in teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9357-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nunner-Winkler, G., Meyer-Nikele, M., & Wohlrab, D. (2007). Gender differences in moral motivation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(1), 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2007.0003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The content of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2004). Sustaining cultural beliefs in the face of their violation: The case of gender stereotypes. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 259–280). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Dhont, K. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 350–359.

  65. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Santana, A. D. (2015). Incivility dominates online comments on immigration. Newspaper Research Journal, 36, 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532915580317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200818436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sharma, S., Durand, R. W., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind... even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1554–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations' Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Thoma, S. J. (1986). Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and preference of moral issues. Developmental Review, 6(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(86)90010-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Viki, G. T., Massey, K., & Masser, B. (2005). When chivalry backfires: Benevolent sexism and attitudes toward Myra Hindley. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Whitley, B. E., & Ægisdóttir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42(11), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007026016001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Whitley Jr., B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Winkler, J., Halfmann, A., & Freudenthaler, R. (2017). Backlash effects in online discussions: Effects of gender and counter-stereotypical communication on persuasiveness and likeability. Paper presented at the 66th annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Diego, CA.

  82. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Wilhelm.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants followed the procedural requirements for ethical research with human subjects of the University of Erfurt. Research procedures were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilhelm, C., Joeckel, S. Gendered Morality and Backlash Effects in Online Discussions: An Experimental Study on How Users Respond to Hate Speech Comments Against Women and Sexual Minorities. Sex Roles 80, 381–392 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0941-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender roles
  • Morality
  • Minority groups
  • Antisocial behavior
  • Online comments
  • Hate speech
  • Moral identity
  • Moral foundation
  • Backlash
  • Gender stereotypes
  • Sexual minority